Modesty has never been Kasparov’s forte. With years, however, our drawbacks
progress geometrically. This is the first thought that springs to mind when
reading his interviews, especially the most recent one at www.chessbase.com
Well, lack of modesty is not his only drawback that gets unproportionally
inflated. What strikes me more, is the lack of objectivity and I would say,
cruel indifference to the past whether it be chess or otherwise.
Paradoxically, there are still people who consider Garry Kasparov a great
historian…
Kasparov’s newest blockbuster, his triology “My Chess Predecessors” was the
subject of the aforementioned interview. Chess publishers in Moscow and New
York almost simultaneously released the first volume of Kasparov’s research.
The book was compiled together with Dmitry Plisetsky, a meticulous and
hard-working journalist, who has done, I am sure, a lion’s share of work
aided by Kasparov’s mega-computers.
Whose predecessors, in this case, are the first 12 World Champions, Kasparov
’s or Plisetsky’s? – this is what one of my pen-pals asked me recently. I
would not say that the title of the triology is too humble. If the
predecessors are great, so Kasparov is great as well…No wonder the third
volume of the book will be dedicated totally to Kasparov’s games. Why
“predecessors” then? I would call the whole piece “12+1”, that would be
more logical…So, this is a book on chess history, and obviously Kasparov
thinks that it has wrapped up in him. But where is Vladimir Kramnik, his
toppler?Or may be, Kramnik has not yet become part of chess history?
Here are two quotes from Kasparov’s interview at chessbase.com
“It's enough to say that any average GM today knows more than Fischer did in
1972, at his peak. He was way ahead of his generation, but we consider many
of those games primitive now, just because we know so much more. Not about
his talent, but about the knowledge. You look at the openings of
Fischer-Spassky, they were searching in the dark. Nowadays you are one click
away from the answer”
Thanks, Mr.Kasparov! At least, you admit that Fischer had a talent. But how
about Fischer and Spassky “searching in the dark”? In this interview
Kasparov remarks that the new generation of chess players were brought up on
the games of his matches with Karpov in the 80s. Doesn’t Kasparov think that
he grew up as a chess player learning from Spassky and Fischer. If he
considers himself a historian, at least a chess historian, he cannot
disagree with me.
Another quote: “In Volume Three I argue that Karpov had a very good chance
to beat Fischer in 75. I would even consider Karpov the favorite in 75. He
was more flexible, he was from a new generation. Karpov's chess was
multifaceted. Fischer would have had a very hard time, and I think Fischer
knew that. I doubt Fischer would have avoided a match with Korchnoi and
Spassky”
Of course, Kasparov has an interest to believe that Karpov could have
defeated Fischer. So, he defeated Karpov, who was stronger that Fischer.
Strange, but never before has he maintained that Karpov was stronger than
Fischer in 1975. The real stunner, however, is that Kasparov believes that
Fischer avoided the match with Karpov intentionally, or that he would have
definitely played with Korchnoi or Spassky. This view was shared in the 70s
only by the brain-washed, law-abiding Soviet citizens and some anti-Fischer
Americans today. What a standpoint to hear from a chess historian like
Kasparov! I wonder whether his views of other champions in his book are as
logical and consistent?
The real truth is that the Soviet Chess Federation was doing everything to
break off the match between Fischer and Karpov, and finally the Soviets
succeeded. In 1975 Kasparov was only 12 years old and may be he was too
young to understand what was happening. However, today it has been
universally acknowledged that Fischer was stonewalled by the Soviet and
world chess community with the criminal non-interference of the US Chess
Federation. Suffice it to read, among other documents, the book “Russians
vs. Fischer” published in English in Moscow a few years ago. To say that
Fischer avoided the match with Karpov is not only an error, it is a lie
vis-a-vis chess history!
If Kasparov is unable (or he does not want ) to properly evaluate the events
of chess history that happened in his lifetime, how can we trust his
assessment of history in general years and centuries before he was born? Are
his opinions competent and objective? And how can we trust his
pronouncements today, when, for example, he supported the “theory” that Iraq
possessed weapons of mass destruction” and therefore had to be attacked by
the United States?

LEV KHARITON wrote (Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:59:41 +0200):
The real stunner, however, is that Kasparov believes that
Fischer avoided the match with Karpov intentionally, or that
he would have definitely played with Korchnoi or Spassky.
This view was shared in the 70s only by the brain-washed,
law-abiding Soviet citizens and some anti-Fischer Americans
today.

_
Some quotes from the 1970s:

"Fischer refused to negotiate or compromise and his
stubbornness is what killed the match - nothing or nobody
else." - GM Evans (1975)

"Karpov deserves to be world champion" - GM Evans (1975)

"Robert Fischer ... retired from competitive chess.
... In the summer of 1974 a dispute arose between
Bobby and FIDE. ... Bobby insisted that his
conditions were 'not negotiable,' remaining adamant
to all pleas to change his mind. Although Euwe gave
him every chance to be conciliatory, Bobby could
not be shaken. Accordingly the title was awarded
to Karpov ... Bobby's ... conditions for the match
with Karpov seem motivated more by inner fantasies
than anything else. ... Karpov has already shown
himself to be a worthy titleholder." - Reuben Fine (1976)

"Bobby Fischer had sent in a number of demands ... Some
of these were conceded ... But two demands were rejected.
... Numerous telegrams had been sent to the Congress by
Fischer via his spokesman, Fred Cramer. The last one said
that, in the light of FIDE's decisions, he was resigning his
FIDE world-championship title. ... Another attempt was
made to bring the FIDE and Fischer into complete accord,
when Colonel Edmondson (U.S. Chess Federation) asked
for the summoning of an extraordinary meeting of the FIDE
Congress. There being a sufficient number of countries in
agreement, it duly assembled at Bergen-aan-Zee in the
Netherlands from 18 to 20 March, 1975. It was an
extraordinary congress in every sense of the word, and
eventually, after much heated discussion, one of Fischer's
demands was conceded: the match was to have a limitless
number of games. But Fischer's other demand - that a
draw be declared when the situation reached nine to nine
- was rejected by a majority of three. Fischer's words on
hearing this were, 'It's all over then.' No match took place.
Fischer ignored the request to say by 2 April whether or not
he would play, and Karpov became the new world champion"
- Golombek (1976)

LEV KHARITON wrote (Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:59:41 +0200):
The real truth is that the Soviet Chess Federation was doing
everything to break off the match between Fischer and Karpov,
and finally the Soviets succeeded. In 1975 Kasparov was only
12 years old and may be he was too young to understand what
was happening.

_
According to the Oxford Companion, Karpov was born in 1951.

LEV KHARITON wrote (Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:59:41 +0200):
However, today it has been universally acknowledged that
Fischer was stonewalled by the Soviet and world chess
community with the criminal non-interference of the US
Chess Federation. Suffice it to read, among other documents,
the book “Russians vs. Fischer” published in English in
Moscow a few years ago.

_
Can Lev Khariton identify something specific in this book
that pertains to what happened in 1974 and 1975?

The real truth is that the Soviet Chess Federation was doing everything to
break off the match between Fischer and Karpov, and finally the Soviets
succeeded.

This is far from the whole truth.
In 1975 Kasparov was only 12 years old and may be he was too
young to understand what was happening. However, today it has been
universally acknowledged that Fischer was stonewalled by the Soviet and
world chess community with the criminal non-interference of the US Chess
Federation.

This is *not* universally acknowledged.
Suffice it to read, among other documents, the book “Russians
vs. Fischer” published in English in Moscow a few years ago. To say that
Fischer avoided the match with Karpov is not only an error, it is a lie
vis-a-vis chess history!

Or perhaps that book itself, is full of inaccuracies and distortions,
if not outright lies.
If Kasparov is unable (or he does not want ) to properly evaluate the events
of chess history that happened in his lifetime, how can we trust his
assessment of history in general years and centuries before he was born?

We don't. We compare Kasparov's theories with everything else that
has been published on these subjects, and evaluate accordingly.
From what I have seen of Kasparov's ideas on history, he has little
grasp of the facts, let alone of the interaction of historical forces.
Are his opinions competent and objective? And how can we trust his
pronouncements today, when, for example, he supported the “theory” that Iraq
possessed weapons of mass destruction” and therefore had to be attacked by
the United States?

Are Lev Khariton's opinions any more competent or objective than
Kasparov's? Whatever the case, each individual "pronouncement"
must be judged for *what* it is, not for *whose* opinion it is,
regardless of the chess skill exhibited by the speaker. Outside
the insular world of chess, Kasparov's opinions on world affairs
have little impact, except perhaps as brief, humorous intrusions
into our daily lives.

Lev Khariton is a good writer and I enjoy reading him. However, he is a
terrible nitpicker and has many prejudices. He dislikes Kasparov and
goes out of his way to find items which are critical of Kasparov.
Khariton is at his best when he reminisces about his personal
experiences in the chess world. His opinions appear to be those of
someone embittered by having lived in the old Soviet Union.

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
...
The real truth is that the Soviet Chess Federation was doing
everything to break off the match between Fischer and Karpov,
and finally the Soviets succeeded. In 1975 Kasparov was only
12 years old and may be he was too young to understand what
was happening.

_
According to the Oxford Companion, Karpov was born in 1951.

Lou, Kasparov was born in 1963. I understand it`s easy to mistake Kasparov
with Karpov ))

"Jerzy" wrote in message
...
"Louis Blair" wrote in message
...
The real truth is that the Soviet Chess Federation was doing
everything to break off the match between Fischer and Karpov,
and finally the Soviets succeeded. In 1975 Kasparov was only
12 years old and may be he was too young to understand what
was happening.

_
According to the Oxford Companion, Karpov was born in 1951.

Lou, Kasparov was born in 1963. I understand it`s easy to mistake Kasparov
with Karpov ))

Regards,

Jerzy

Dear Jerzy,
I don't wonder that Mr. Blair missed the chess. It seems that he writes
dozens (hundreds?) mails daily, so he become a bit superficial. I think
that's better to write one advisedly mail than dozens nonsense mails. I
don't read any of his mails, because I think that he writes by inertia and
elongates every thread because he can't stop himself, like a gambler who
loses.
It seems that Mr. Blair is not alone in his superficial reading, so I have
to recall one more time (thread-Popularity contest and bad qualities) that
Mr. Euwe was FIDE President in 1975, and what has he done:
-------------------------
He was very
respected and had big influence on all delegates on general assembly FIDE
in Nice (June 30. 1974) and on extra FIDE conference (March 20. 1975).
Delegates accepted the first Fischer's claim to play without limit of the
game numbers (37:33). But, the second Fischer's claim was refused. That was
Fischer's claim that he detain the title if the result in match would be
undecided, 9:9. That claim was refused with 35:32 and 3 votes were retired.
You know that Fischer's demand was used by other WCC (e.g. Botvinnik,
Lasker). So, it was fair to accomplish Fischer's claim. But, President FIDE,
Maks Euwe didn't do anything. He proclaimed Karpov World Chess Champion,
though he has not won WCC Bobby Fischer in the match. On April 3rd 1975, at
11 o'clock a.m he declared that Bobby was not more World Chess Champion.

-------------------------------

So, chess establishment ruled in 1975 removed Fischer from the chess throne.
It's obviously that Fischer was not afraid of Karpov. By the way, you can
see Chessmetric evaluation of the strength Karpov and Fischer in 1975. The
difference was too big ...

With all due respect to Lev Khariton and his works I can't agree or
disagree with his opinion until I read the book of Kasparov myself.
Otherwise it would be "I did not read the book myself but I blame the
author for it".

tomic wrote (Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:05:21 +0200):
Delegates accepted the first Fischer's claim to play without limit
of the game numbers (37:33). But, the second Fischer's claim
was refused. That was Fischer's claim that he detain the title if
the result in match would be undecided, 9:9. That claim was
refused with 35:32 and 3 votes were retired. You know that
Fischer's demand was used by other WCC (e.g. Botvinnik,
Lasker).

_
I know of no world championship match played by Botvinnik
or Lasker where the challenger had to finish two points ahead
of the champion in order to cause the champion to lose his title.
It is true that Lasker sought such a rule, but that was at a time
when there was no FIDE that was in a position to take the title
away from a champion who sought inappropriate rules. There
are also those who think that there was a secret conspiracy to
fool the public about the rules of the 1910 Lasker-Schlechter
match, but nothing has been found that confirms this.

tomic wrote (Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:05:21 +0200):
It's obviously that Fischer was not afraid of Karpov. By
the way, you can see Chessmetric evaluation of the strength
Karpov and Fischer in 1975. The difference was too big ...

_
By 1975, Fischer had been away from serious chess for
three years. Human emotions, especially Fischer emotions,
are not necessarily governed by chessmetrics.